The Weekly: Iran War Dominates Washington as DHS Pick Faces Scrutiny and SAVE Act Advances

C-SPAN and Washington today are made possible with support from Disney.

You've been there, settling in for an evening of TV only to waste half the night scrolling.

Enter Fire TV, entertainment with zero effort required.

Fire TV serves up personalized recommendations from across all your apps.

Not sure what to watch? Just tell Alexa Plus what you're in the mood for

and she'll pull up the perfect recommendation.

Problem solved, stop the scroll, start the show.

Find what you're looking for with Fire TV.

Subscriptions may be required.

Welcome to the Weekly Podcast, a look back at the story's shaping Washington.

I'm Shannon Rice.

This week the war in Iran dominated the conversation,

as the Pentagon asked for billions more in funding

and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle questioned the cost and the path forward.

Back home, the spotlight turned to the Department of Homeland Security

where the President's nominee to lead the agency face scrutiny on Capitol Hill

amid heightened concerns over border security and national preparedness.

And on the legislative front, an election bill takes center stage.

The SAV Act, which would require a proof of citizenship to register to vote,

has passed the House and is sparking an intense debate in the Senate

over voting access and election integrity.

This week the Pentagon announced it is seeking $200 billion in additional funds

for the war in Iran.

Though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cautioned the figure could change

as he deferred to President Trump on how long the conflict will last.

As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move, obviously.

It takes money to kill bad guys.

So we're going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that we're properly funded

for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future.

Ensure that our ammunition is everything's refilled and not just refilled,

but above and beyond.

I mean, President Trump, as he said, rebuilt the military in his first term,

didn't think he'd use it as dynamically in his second buddy had.

So thank goodness he did that.

An investment like this is meant to say, hey, we'll replace anything that was spent

and now that we're reviving our defense industrial base and rebuilding the arsenal of freedom

and cutting deals like our great deputy secretaries here is doing.

Long lead times on exquisite munitions, we're going to be refilled faster

than anyone imagined.

And I think, you know, we're also still dealing with the environment that Joe Biden created,

which was depleting those stock holes and not sending them to our own military,

but to Ukraine, which is when every time we reach back and look at any sort of a challenge

we have, it goes back to, well, send it to Ukraine.

Ultimately, we think these munitions are better spent in our own interests at this point

and this kind of funding bill is going to ensure that we're properly funded going forward.

The supplemental funding request, which the administration would need to submit to Congress,

would set up what is expected to be a contentious fight over a war lawmakers have had little say in.

Democrats are expected to push back on any additional funding for a war they have sharply criticized,

which remains largely unpopular with the American people.

Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, signaled he was open to a funding package.

The Washington Post is reporting they're going to ask for $200 billion,

depending on some of us that work from Congress. Is that too much for a war that's virtually accomplished?

I'm sure it would be detailed and specified.

I'm sure it's not a random number, so we'll look at that.

But obviously, it's a dangerous time in the world and we have to adequately fund the fence

and we have a commitment to be able to pass that money.

House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries was asked on Thursday if Democrats opposing the $200 billion request

could potentially leave US troops in the lurch.

So the administration says they're going to request $200 billion for the war in Iran.

I know many Democrats oppose the war, but if Democrats were to oppose this request,

does that create a problem leaving troops under hostilities in the lurch in the middle of this conflict?

It's our understanding right now that there are no troops on the ground.

And in fact, the American people would reject Donald Trump and Pete Hexeth and Republicans

putting our troops on the ground in harm's way in the Middle East.

In fact, what Donald Trump promised as candidate Trump is that he was not going to get America

into a reckless war of choice in the Middle East.

But as President Trump, that's exactly what he's done.

And so it's our responsibility right now to end this reckless war of choice,

to end the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent,

perhaps up to $2 billion a day to drop bombs in the Middle East.

But these same Republicans here ripped Medicaid away from millions of people including children and seniors.

They've stolen food from the mouths of hungry veterans by enacting $186 billion cut to snap.

And then at the same period of time gave a $75 billion slush fund to ICE.

That's their priority.

They gave massive tax breaks to their billionaire donors.

That's the Republican priority.

And now they're dropping bombs in the Middle East in a reckless war of choice spending billions of dollars.

Here's what we should be doing.

We should repeal the Medicaid cuts.

We should extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.

We should refund the money that Donald Trump stole from the American people through his unconstitutional and unlawful tariffs as declared by the Supreme Court.

That's what we should be doing if we're talking about the expenditure of billions of dollars of money.

Make life better for everyday Americans.

President Trump said the administration was asking for the funds for a lot of reasons beyond even what we're talking about in Iran.

The war is almost over.

Why is the Pentagon going to act Congress for an additional $200 billion?

Well, we're asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we're talking about in Iran.

This is a very volatile world.

And the military equipment, the power of some of this weaponry is unthinkable.

You don't even want to know about it.

Oh, you could end this thing in two seconds if you wanted to.

But we are being very judicious.

But we want to do it.

Don't forget Biden gave away.

We built the military in my first time.

Biden gave away so stupidly to Afghanistan a lot.

He didn't want to move it.

He was too lazy, too stupid to move it.

But it was a very small amount.

It was a lot, but it was very small relative to what I purchased and what I built.

We want to have a good, we want to have vast amounts of ammunition, which we have right now.

We have a lot of ammunition, but it was taken down by giving so much to Ukraine.

They gave so much, you know, Biden gave $350 billion worth of cash and military equipment to Ukraine.

And he didn't rebuild anything.

Fortunately, we have a lot, we have a tremendous, unlimited supply of what you'd call middle and upper middle armaments and military equipment.

Munitions, armaments, but munitions in particular.

At the high end, we have a lot, but we're preserving it.

We don't really need it.

But we're building our manufacturers of military equipment.

Our building at a level they've never seen before.

They've never done before.

Peets and charge of it with all of us, really.

But Peets have been very, very strong on it.

The general and Pete, myself, the whole group.

And Raytheon is building four factories.

Lockheed is building five or six factories, and they're building them fast.

Because we had a very tough meeting with them.

They were going out and buying, buying back stock for $51 billion in one case.

They spent $51 billion as buying back stock.

Now they're not allowed to do that.

And they are now building a tremendous, there's never been anything like it.

What's taking place right now.

So we're a very good shape, but we want to be in the best shape.

The best shape we've ever been in.

We were with that.

When I rebuilt the military, we were in great shape, and then Biden blew it.

And he didn't do anything.

He didn't do anything.

And if you listen to the Democrats, they don't even want to have a military.

Now you see how important it is.

But we have the strongest military in the world.

We have the best equipment we make by far the best equipment.

Tonight, they had 114 rockets shot at a certain location.

And out of 100 highly sophisticated rockets, out of 114 sophisticated rockets,

every single one of them was shot down with our equipment.

All our equipment.

It's amazing actually how good it is.

So we want to be sure, and it's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top.

SEMA4 is reporting this week that the FBI has opened a leak investigation

into a top former intelligence official who resigned earlier this week

in protest over the war in Iran.

The investigation into former national counterterrorism center director Joe Kent

is focused on allegations that he improperly shared classified information

for people with direct knowledge of the investigation told SEMA4.

In his resignation letter Tuesday, Kent wrote that Iran quote,

that Iran quote, pose no imminent threat to our nation

and accused President Donald Trump of starting the war

because of quote, pressure from Israel.

Speaking Thursday night at the National Prayer Gala,

Mr. Kent remained critical of the war in Iran.

This decision to follow your conscience.

Give us a little backstory.

How did that happen?

Without getting too much into detail, I just did a long form podcast with Tucker

kind of laid out the entire politics of the issue.

But look, after serving 20 years, mostly deployed to the Middle East,

fighting the wars over there and just seeing how our country had been lied to

and brought down the wrong path in those wars and that we were getting sucked into another one

and that the American people didn't have the full story

and our country did not have a vital national interest in this current fight.

I said, hey, I, in good conscience can't do this because that was a promise I made to myself

probably 20 plus years ago when I was deployed to Iraq.

Once I realized after my first couple of deployments that we weren't there for the reasons

that our government told us we were there for, I said, if it's ever my turn,

if I'm ever an adult in this situation, I ever have a position of responsibility.

I will not in good conscience send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields.

So we're Catholics here and I believe you're a baptized Catholic.

We saw just on Sunday and this is so great to see because people are like,

why a Catholic champion or why are you here?

The Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth, has been so strong and outspoken

in recent comments talking about what Catholics should be worried about,

the innocent people that are being hurt through all this.

He mentioned the Catholic priest that was killed, Father Pierre, by an attack in Lebanon.

Does it help you to have other members of your faith community or religious leaders

speaking up on your behalf?

What's it like to have that support from outside?

It's been huge.

I quite frankly didn't think when I submitted my resignation,

it would get the traction or the attention that you talked about,

but having this support from friends, family, but really,

I've been asked a couple times, was it a hard decision to make?

And it's definitely a decision I didn't make lightly.

I put a lot of thought into it, and I had been thinking about it for quite some time.

But having faith, I think I was able to hear God's voice.

I was able to hear that I was exactly where I was supposed to be,

and it was my time to actually take action, which made taking the action incredibly easy,

actually, and actually maybe feel very liberated and like I'm in the right spot.

So.

Thank you.

Do you have hope for America, and if you do, why so?

I have a great deal of hope for America.

I think this is a very exciting moment.

I think the fact that we're seeing people who speak out on behalf of their faith

or who are willing to speak truth to power,

and the fact that the people who support them are able to actually have a voice

because of the technology, which obviously can be used for a lot of bad,

but in the case of connecting like-minded people and getting our word out,

that technology is a very powerful weapon in our hand.

And also the young people in this country, the young men, the young women,

the funny here in this room, I was kind of overwhelmed when I got here tonight,

especially by the young folks that came up and wanted to shake my hand.

And so I have a lot of hope for the next generation.

I think as we head into this midterm season and just as this war advances in the next couple of weeks,

I think, like you said, in your open, the most important thing we can do is be on our knees and pray,

but once we're up from our knees, we need to take action.

Our leaders will hear us if we all speak out.

We're at a critical juncture in the war in Iran.

We need to let our leaders hear that we do not support this war.

We do not think there's a vital national security interest.

We want to bring our troops home.

We want to work towards peace in that region.

We do not want 20 plus more years of bloodletting.

And then as we head into this next election cycle, demand from everyone,

from every political party.

Go to them, go to your representatives and say I will not vote for you

if you are going to vote for the continuation of these wars overseas.

And by no means, I don't expect anybody here to be some kind of a pacifist.

If our country is attacked, we will attack.

If there's an imminent attack, we will attack.

If there's an actual threat, we will attack and we will fight that.

However, we cannot continue to go down this path.

We have to make that clear to our leaders.

That's what gives me hope.

President Trump's aides and allies denounced Kent as a leaker immediately

after his resignation became public.

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Thursday

Iran no longer has the ability to enrich uranium or make ballistic missiles

war objectives previously cited by the Trump administration.

Israel will hold off on any further attacks on the Iranian gas field Netanyahu added

at the request of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Well, I missled no one.

And I didn't have to convince President Trump about the need to prevent Iran

from developing its nuclear program, putting it underground, and being able to launch

nuclear-tipped missiles at the United States.

He understood that.

He explained it to me.

I didn't explain it to him.

The New York Times writes President Trump said on Thursday that he had complained to

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel about the bombing of one of Iran's largest

offshore gas fields, exposing the two allies sharply different strategies as they tried

to disarm Iran and in the case of Israel, trigger state collapse.

Mr. President, you talked to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about attacking the oil and gas fields.

Yeah, I did.

I told him, don't do that.

And he won't do that.

We didn't discuss.

You know, we do.

We're independent.

We get along great.

It's coordinated.

But on occasion, he'll do something.

And if I don't like it.

And so we're not doing that anymore.

Back to the New York Times, three Israeli officials briefed on the strike on the gas field

and said that the United States was informed before the attack.

But Mr. Trump and a truth social posting suggested he knew nothing about it and said the United

States did not participate in a war that is about to complete its third week with no end in sight.

The attack and the furious counter-estrikes on the energy facilities of the Persian Gulf states

revealed that the two allies were clearly not coordinated in their approach.

The war in Iran was front and center this week with Director of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard was joined by CIA Director John Rackliffe, FBI Director Cash Patel, Lieutenant General

William J. Hartman, who is the Acting Director of the National Security Agency,

and Lieutenant General James H. Adams, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,

at a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Hearing on Worldwide Threats,

the same lineup appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

During Thursday's hearing, Gabbard for the first time publicly broke with Joe Kent,

her former aide who we spoke about earlier, in protest of the war with Iran,

but remained coy about her own view toward the war.

And she was evasive when questioned on what President Trump was told about the threat Iran posed to America

and how it would likely respond to the United States and Israeli attacks.

Here's more with Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas, questioning Director Gabbard.

To the best of your knowledge, do you know whether Israel is supportive of the President's call to make a deal with Iran?

I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know Israel's position on that.

And to what do you attribute Israel's decision to strike Iranian energy infrastructure,

despite President Trump's call to keep those facilities off limits?

I don't have an answer for that.

So they ignored the President. Do you agree with that?

I'm not privy to any of their deliberations or what went into their calculus in launching this or other attacks.

Representative Jimmy Gomez, Democrat of California, grilled Gabbard on her testimony last year,

that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon, which at the time prompted the President to say that his intelligence chief was wrong.

Director Gabbard, last year you testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

Do you stand by that statement?

Yes or no?

Context matters with that statement.

Yes or no?

Iran had all of them in the field.

I reclaim my time.

I reclaim my time to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

It's an easy answer.

You either stand by what you said last year or not.

It is a serious question that requires the to tell.

Director Gabbard, I reclaim my time.

I reclaim my time.

When President Trump was asked about your testimony, he said you were wrong.

Were you lying or not?

I stand by the intelligence community's complete assessment.

Director Ratcliffe, when it came to the director's testimony,

she said that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon last spring in Congress.

And so the Supreme Leader has not authorized the nuclear weapons program.

Do you agree with what she said or not?

Yes or no?

The director's right here.

She can speak for herself.

Oh, so I thought this was an intelligence community briefing.

Let's move on.

Trump also said he didn't care what you thought or said.

Should he care about what you have to say when it comes to intelligence?

I continue to provide the president with the intelligence community's assessments on all matters.

Gabbard said during her opening comments at the House and Senate hearings this week

that her testimony to lawmakers, quote, does not represent my personal views or opinions,

but rather the assessments of the intelligence community of the threats against the United States,

our homeland, and our interests.

To find both the House and Senate hearings, visit our website at cspan.org.

They're there in the cspan video library.

This episode is brought to you by White Claw Surge.

Nice choice, hitting up this podcast.

No surprises.

You're all about diving in and it tastes everyone in the room can enjoy.

Just like White Claw Surge.

It's for celebrating those moments when connections have been made and the nights just begun.

With bold flavors and 8% alcohol by volume, unleash the night.

Unleash White Claw Surge.

Please drink responsibly.

Hard Seltzer with flavors, 8% alcohol by volume, White Claw Seltzer works, Chicago, Illinois.

The all new 2026 Toyota RAV4 is here, building on everything drivers know and love about Toyota.

With a redesigned look and modern tech that makes life behind the wheel easier than ever.

The new RAV4 comes standard as a hybrid, providing smooth, efficient performance for both city streets and longer journeys.

Enjoy the legendary reliability Toyota is known for in the all new 2026 RAV4.

Learn and shop more at toyota.com.

Toyota, let's go places.

Xima.

As unpredictable.

But you can flare less with Ebglyce.

A once monthly treatment for moderate to superior Ebglyce.

After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and ten people taking Ebglyce achieved itch relief and glare or almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.

Ebglyce, Libri Kizumap, LBKZ.

A 250-milligram per 2-milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

Also called a topic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Ebglyce can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

If you don't use if you're allergic to Ebglyce, allergic reactions can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebglyce.

Before starting Ebglyce, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask your doctor about Ebglyce and visit Ebglyce.lily.com or call 1-800-LilyRX or 1-800-545-5979.

Right now, new fan dual customers can get up to $300 back in bonus bets every day for ten days.

Place a tournament bet using the token.

And if it doesn't win, you'll get up to $300 back in bonus bets every single day for ten days straight.

You can even mix things up with same game parlies for a shot at a bigger payout.

Fan dual. It's time to dance.

21-plus in present and select states.

Bonus bets are non-withdrawable and expire seven days after receipt.

Tokens are received in increments of one per day.

Restrictions apply.

See terms at sportsbook.fandal.com.

Gamling Problem Call 1-800-Gamler.

Back on Capitol Hill, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted Thursday

to advance Senator Mark Wayne Mullins nomination to be the next Homeland Security Secretary

after the Oklahoma Lawmaker fought with committee chair Rand Paul in a tense Wednesday confirmation hearing.

The vote, eight senators voting in favor and seven against, fell mostly along party lines with a notable vote swap.

Senator Paul, the Kentucky Republican, voted against advancing Mullins nomination as he pledged to do on Wednesday.

When in Oklahoma the media asked you about the refugee welfare programs, the programs you voted to continue funding,

it was this whole idea that you were going to transfer it because you were uncomfortable or you were angered, low impulse control.

It causes you to then go after and decide that you were going to go after me as well.

And so you say you completely understood that I was assaulted from behind and six years broke and a part of my lung removed.

And that was just fine. That's something that you, I guess, approve of as far as resolution of political problems.

When I talked to you on the private, on the, privately on the phone, there was no apology, apology.

You just said, well, we can let our political difference, you know, go by and you say, you said a few minutes ago, we can just set it aside.

Well, political differences we can, but when you say that you agree with a, a felon, a Trump hating felon who attacked me,

somehow you think I'm just going to set that aside. Oh, it's no big deal. You know, I lay in pain for two months,

had six ribs broken, three of them separated, grinding upon bone on bone for months, had part of my lung removed.

And you think that's great and to be extoled. I mean, the sheer lack of any kind of self awareness that you're going to be leading thousands of men and women

who will be have the use of force and there's been great questions in our country about how that will be used.

And you think of a violent attack is just fine.

So I guess my first question is, do you think that justifying that kind of violence sets a good example for the men and women of ice and border patrol?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know the senior damage with a phone call was made. I made it to you and I tried to talk to you.

You didn't engage at all. In fact, you said get your paperwork in. It's got to be at three works three days in between.

You offer no apology, sir. And you offer no apology today and no regrets.

I don't have the word apologize. Haven't heard the word regret. Haven't heard. I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake.

Actually, any of those words. So actually it wasn't heated. And I'm not apologizing for pointing out your counter. Good. So you're, you're jolly well fine.

And you want the American public and the people up here to vote that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious violent attack on me from behind.

I did not say I supported it. I said I understood it. There's a difference.

By calling you by calling that means you really didn't approve of it. Just completely understand it.

What do you think most people would interpret completely understand to be support for or a condemnation of the violence?

Sir, as I said, we can have our differences. It's not going to keep me from doing my job as Secretary of Homeland Security.

I'm going to secure Kentucky and take care of Kentucky as much as I am open.

If this were a one off, it would be one thing. If you just disliked me so much that you approved violence against me, people could just write it off.

Well, maybe they hate each other.

But really there's a pattern of this. Let's go ahead and roll the tape.

We can be considered as an adult. We can finish it here.

Okay, that's fine. You want to do it now? I'd love to do it or not.

Let's change our butt up there.

You just need to do it now.

Hold it. Hold it.

Don't sit down.

Sit down.

You don't know. You're an eyed student.

Actual. Okay.

Sit down, please.

All right.

That is smarter. It's all that folded.

If he got it, too.

Would you have gone at it right there?

I wouldn't have prayed to him over the dice at that point.

He'd have to be called out. Not this guy continues to get away with this stuff.

And I did use it.

You know, it is silly and stupid.

But every now and then, you get punched in the face.

Well, come back to the 18 minutes and 70 minutes.

These are keens.

And tools.

These are keens.

All right.

And there's a way that may be some sort of differences.

I ignored him before the time.

Part of that.

And you'll see, as you're supposed to ignore him.

Well, you know, I'm not a very good Christian.

I try to be a good Christian.

And I know people say he wants to turn the other cheek.

I prefer the data method.

But we need to move from.

And all those five days.

I'm not afraid of fighting.

I'm going to fight.

Fighting?

Oh, I'm going to fight.

I'm going to fight.

I'm going to fight.

I'll probably eat it.

I'm going to fight.

And I don't think we're going to fight.

In hindsight, any regrets?

No.

I really don't.

So no regrets.

In fact, even after your anger, it cooled.

You were still bragging that if you'd only been brave enough to stand up,

you'd have jumped over the days and taught him a lesson.

Because that's how men should settle their differences.

Do you think fighting as a resolution for political differences is a good example

for the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol?

As you can notice, or my shoulder here is my good friend, Sean O'Brien.

Both of us have had conversations.

Both of us have shaken hands.

And both of us have agreed we could have done things different.

Sean is someone that has become a close friend.

We talk all the time.

I've been on his podcast.

We talked through this.

That's how you handle your differences.

Not like this, Chairman.

I'm glad you guys are friends now and that you've reconciled.

But really, it doesn't get to the real point,

whether or not you think violence is the way we settle things.

Democrat Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania broke away from the other members of his party

and voted to advance Mullen's nomination.

Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee,

said ahead of the vote Thursday that Mullen had failed to be forthright and transparent

throughout the confirmation process.

He said Mullen had also shown that he doesn't have the experience or the temperament

to lead this critical department.

After DHS officers shot and killed two American citizens this past January,

you joined top administrative officials in publicly blaming and disparaging the victims.

Following the killing of Renee Good, Secretary Nome called her a domestic terrorist.

You, sir, you called Alex Prety, quote,

a deranged individual that came into cause max damage.

Could we expect those kinds of quick responses if you are confirmed as Secretary?

Would you be basically what you did?

You responded as Secretary Nome.

Are we going to just expect that same behavior all over again?

No, Senator.

I have a deep amount of respect for you.

We've had our differences, but I do respect you.

I think I said this privately when we had a conversation.

Those words probably should have been retracted.

I shouldn't have said that, and Secretary, I wouldn't.

The investigation is ongoing.

And there is, like I said, there are sometimes going to make mistakes and I own it.

That one, I went out there too fast.

I was responding immediately without the facts.

That's my fault that won't happen as Secretary.

So you regret that statement?

I already said that, yes, sir.

Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Prety?

Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements.

Is that the same as an apology?

I haven't seen the investigation.

We'll let the investigation go through.

And if I'm improving wrong, then I will absolutely.

President Trump nominated Mullen to replace DHS Secretary Christy Nome

earlier this month amid intense criticism

over the department's immigration enforcement operation.

But the final blow for Nome's leadership seemed to come out

at a pair of congressional hearings days before her ouster

as she faced pushback from Republicans,

including on DHS's controversial advertising spending.

The Senate is sticking around Washington for a weekend session

as Republicans work to pass the Save Act.

Lawmakers have already failed to advance funding for the Department of Homeland Security,

which is in its 36-day of a shutdown.

And the weekend will bring an amendment sponsored by Senator Tommy Tuberville,

Republican of Alabama, to bar transgender athletes

from participating in women's sports,

and an initial vote on Oklahoma Republican Senator Mark Wade Mullins,

nomination for DHS Secretary.

Now, that's scheduled for Sunday.

Speaking Thursday from Capitol Hill, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah,

on the importance of the Save Act.

And then in terms of just the process we're seeing now,

we're spending several days with members of both parties talking about this bill,

how long would you like this sort of extended debate period to pass?

And do you think it's a productive use of the Republican Party's time?

Yes, absolutely and fatically.

There's nothing more pressing.

Now, there are only a couple of things that are likely to interrupt it,

but they'd interrupt it momentarily.

Obviously, we're still very much wanting to get DHS funded.

Those discussions are still ongoing.

We could toggle back and forth if one at deal is reached on that.

And I hope it is.

And then Mark Wayne Mullins' confirmation vote,

or we can toggle in and out of that and get that done,

but we need to go right back to this.

The answer question is to how long, as long as it takes,

long as it takes to get it passed, with legislation that is this popular

and people from both parties among every demographic,

among regionally, rationally, racially party affiliation, male, female,

we have an obligation to do everything we can to get this passed.

In the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the same bill,

different context, I don't mean to overdo the comparison.

They stayed on that for 60 days.

And, near the close of that 60-day process,

when people were worn down, the members opposing it,

it was a 32-vote closure deficit that they faced.

The members who had been opposing it for that long got worn down,

not just physically exhausted, but they also became tired of opposing a bill

that was getting more popular, as people saw more about it.

And as they saw that the arguments against the bill weren't working and weren't good.

And so, in order to save face and in order to address some of their concerns,

they proposed amendments. Those amendments were adopted.

They closed the 32-vote closure deficit.

If they could do that on a bill that's much more complex,

groundbreaking was less popular between 51 and 54 percent at the time it was passed

by the House in March of 1964.

And they were able to close a 32-vote closure deficit.

We can do that with a much simpler bill, a more popular bill,

that has a mere 10-vote closure deficit.

President Donald Trump has said he won't sign other bills until law,

until the Save Act is passed.

Democrat Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware spoke out against the Save Act and a rally.

What is the Save America Act really saving us from?

What is it saving us from?

Thank you.

Is it saving young people who are on college campuses?

No!

Is it saving people of color?

No!

Is it saving somebody who lives in a rural community that would have to travel hours just to vote?

No!

Is it saving people in tribal communities?

No!

Is it saving the 69 million women who have changed their names?

No!

And I know it for sure, because I've changed my name.

I've been Lisa Blunt, Lisa Blunt, Bradley Lisa Blunt, Rochester.

I've been married, divorced, widowed, 69 million women are going to be affected by this.

That's right.

And so I will tell you, I think it's probably the answer that the president gave himself.

They want to make sure that the right people vote.

So I guess all of us aren't the right people.

I guess we're not.

I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives

when I was elected in 2016.

And I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as the United States Senator.

And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on January 6th,

and all I could think to do was pray.

This document allowed my great-great-great-grandfather who had been enslaved in Georgia to have the right to vote.

We took this and turned it into a scarf.

It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction oath from 1867.

This is my proof of what we've been through.

This is our proof.

This is also our inspiration.

Also our inspiration.

Zero Democrats voted on a motion to proceed to the bill on Tuesday,

and one Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against it.

Now, according to the Hill, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky,

voted to proceed to the bill as a courtesy to leader Thun.

But he has told colleagues privately he does not support the legislation.

And Senator Tom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, who is retiring at the end of the year,

has also expressed opposition to the measure and says provisions to restrict mail and voting need more work.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York,

has pledged the Democrats will make an all-out push to defeat the legislation on the Senate floor.

Remember, you can always find the Senate when it's in session on C-SPAN-2.

The Federal Reserve held its benchmark interest rate steady on Wednesday,

as policymakers face growing signs of a softening job market,

even as the war in Iran puts more upward pressure on prices.

By a vote of 11 to 1, members of the Fed's rate-setting committee opted to leave the federal fund's rate between three and a half

and three and three-fourths percent.

The dissenting member, former White House economist Steve Myron,

would have preferred to cut the benchmark by a quarter-percentage point.

My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment

and stable prices for the benefit of the American people.

The U.S. economy has been expanding at a solid pace.

While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months,

and inflation remains somewhat elevated.

Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged.

We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment

and 2 percent inflation goals.

The implications of developments in the Middle East for the U.S. economy are uncertain.

We will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate.

On a different front, President Donald Trump has for months wanted to remove Jerome Powell as a chair of the Federal Reserve,

but instead an investigation by one of his own officials could end up extending Powell's time at the top of the central bank

even after his term formally ends May 15th.

What happens if there's no Federal Reserve chairman confirmed on May 15th? Would you stay on?

So if my successor is not confirmed by the end of my term as chair, I would serve as chair pro-tem until he is confirmed.

That is what the law calls for.

That's what we've done on several occasions, including involving me, and that's what we're going to do in this situation.

And while I'm at it, on the question whether I will leave while the investigation is ongoing,

I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality,

and I would refer you to the statement that was in the Fed's brief that you all have seen,

and I wouldn't have anything more for you on that.

On the question of whether I will then continue to serve as a governor after my term ends and after the investigation is over,

I have not made that decision yet, and I will make that decision based on what I think is best for the institution and for the people we serve.

Chairman Powell's legacy will likely hinge on whether he can successfully guide the economy to a soft landing,

bringing inflation back to target while avoiding a major turn down, all while navigating political pressure and global economic uncertainty.

Finally, it was 23 years ago this week, President George W. Bush announced the beginning of the war in Iraq,

and it televised address from the White House, President Bush demanded Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his family leave Iraq within 48 hours.

For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.

That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy.

We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council.

We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq.

Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.

It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament.

Over the years, UN weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials electronically bugged and systematically deceived.

Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East.

It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists including operatives of al-Qaeda.

The danger is clear using chemical, biological, or one-day nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq.

The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it.

The Iraq war stretched nearly a decade, toppling Saddam Hussein quickly, but pulling U.S. forces into years of insurgency and instability.

American combat operations ended in 2010, with a full withdrawal the following year after thousands of U.S. and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives were lost.

That's it for the latest episode of The Weekly.

If you like this podcast, please like and follow wherever you found it, and you'll get to hear more of them.

And find C-SPAN online anytime at cspan.org.